Do you think there are women who will only see a female gyno?
Is that percentage 5%, 10%, 50%?
Is that percentage growing or shrinking?
Would a medical facility be justified in specifically and intentionally hiring a female doctor?
That's simply stupid. I'll break it down again.....
You are in charge of staffing a medical facility. Your staff is to include 5 gynecologists.
Should you knowingly and intentionally hire at least one female?
If you say no, you are insane.
If you say yes, you reluctantly get the point.
Is this still an analogy with appointing judges or have yall moved on?That's simply stupid. I'll break it down again.....
You are in charge of staffing a medical facility. Your staff is to include 5 gynecologists.
Should you knowingly and intentionally hire at least one female?
If you say no, you are insane.
If you say yes, you reluctantly get the point.
That's simply stupid. I'll break it down again.....
You are in charge of staffing a medical facility. Your staff is to include 5 gynecologists.
Should you knowingly and intentionally hire at least one female?
If you say no, you are insane.
If you say yes, you reluctantly get the point.
The NFL example perfectly made the point.Says the guy who brought up an NFL example. Logic and consistency is not a forte of Luth's.
I assume they hired the best female doctor they could find. If they were to stupid to find a qualified female doctor, they would justifiably lose a large part of their business.I assume they hired the best qualified they could find. If I found out they hired the doctor looking after me based on some diversity checkbox, I've visited them for the last time.
Do you have any desire to discuss this further?Who said diversity for its own sake. It's diversity for multiple reasons.....maybe there is one of your many misunderstandings.
Having a diversified judicial system increases the confidence in the roll carried out by the judicial system.
They would have a different perspective on the implementation, impact, and enforcement of laws.